Excerpt: - - the order of the tribunal, thereforee, is perfectly in order......to him, respondent no. 1 was the tenant under him on a monthly rent of rs. 56.56 and had not paid rent with effect from september 6, 1968 in spite of registered notice of demand. respondent no. 1, on the other hand, pleaded in reply that he was a tenant of the entire shop bearing municipal no. 5066 including the portion comprised of one small room and a part of the chabutra which has been allotted to mool chand and which had been reconstructed in the meantime. the petition was said to be for partial eviction and, thereforee, not maintainable. mool chand was said to be a mere licensee, who was allowed by respondent no. 1 to carry on business in a small room and a part of the chabutra. the appellant had occupied that portion on the death of mool chand on july 5. 1964 a sum of rs......

Judgment:

P.N. Khanna, J.

(1) The only question involved in this second appeal is about the scope of section 15, of of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act.'

(2) Messrs Banarsi Dass Prahlad Rai, respondent No. 1 was a partnership firm cosisting of two partners, viz. Prahlad Rai and Mool Chand. Certain premises in property No. 5066, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi were under the tenancy of the said firm. The partners could not pull on together and they partitioned the premises. Portion shown as red in the plan attached to the eviction petition fell to the share of Prahlad Rai, who continued to carry on his business in the said firm name of Banarsi Dass, Prahlad Rai, as its sole proprietor ; while the remaining portion of the tenanted premises fell to the share of Mool Chand, father of 0m Parkash Gupta, the appellant. The partners also agreed to share amongst themselves the rent of the Premises. Accordingly respondent No. 1 started paying rent for his portion at the rate of Rs.56/ 56 per month. The balance amount was paid by Mool Chand. Mool Chand died sometime thereafter and Om Parkash Gupta, the appellant, occupied the portion which had fallen to his share. Subsequently, Om Parkash Gupta purchased the entire property and became the owner thereof. Respondent No. 1 as a result of this purchase becama a tenant under the appellant.

(3) 0M Parkash Gupta, the appellant, then brought a petition for eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute on the ground, inter alias of non-payment of rent. According to him, respondent No. 1 was the tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 56.56 and had not paid rent with effect from September 6, 1968 in spite of registered notice of demand. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, pleaded in reply that he was a tenant of the entire shop bearing Municipal No. 5066 including the portion comprised of one small room and a part of the Chabutra which has been allotted to Mool Chand and which had been reconstructed in the meantime. The Petition was said to be for partial eviction and, thereforee, not maintainable. Mool Chand was said to be a mere licensee, who was allowed by respondent No. 1 to carry on business in a small room and a part of the Chabutra. The appellant had occupied that portion on the death of Mool Chand on July 5. 1964 A sum of Rs. 105.00 per month was the agreed rent of the entire premises As a portion of the tenanted premises had been taken away from the possession of Respondent No. 1, the latter was entitled to suspend payment of rent.

(4) The Additional Controller had passed an ordaer under section 15(1) of the Act directing Respondent No. 1 to deposit the entire arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 56.56 per month with effect from the 6th September, 1968 up to dale within one month from the date of the order and future rent month by month at the same rate by the 15th day of each succeeding month till the disposal of the petition. The learned Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Additional Controller and directed him to first record evidence and decide the dispute finally and then to proceed to pass an order under section 15(1) of the Act, if still so required.

(5) It will be noticed that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed. The controversy between the parties was in respect of the extent of the premises let and the monthly rent last paid. According to the appellant, the portion of the premises allotted to Mool Chand on partition of the tenancy premises, had been surrendered. The rent for the portion retained by respondent No. 1 was fixed at Rs. 56.56. The respondent denied these allegations and asserted that the tenancy was in respect of the entire premises , and the rate of rent was Rs. 105.00 per month. The scope of section 15 of the Act, thereforee, has to be examined in the light of these circumstances. Section 15, in so far as it is relevant, reads as follows : -

'15.When a tenant can get the benefit of protection against eviction. (1) In every proceedings for the recovery of possession of any premises on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14, the Controller shall, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, make an order directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month of the date of the order, an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of the rent were legally recoverable from the tenant including the period subsequent thereto up to the end of the month previous to that in which payment or deposit is made and to continue to pay or deposit, month by month, by the fifteenth of each succeeding month, a sum equivalent to the rent at that rate.

2.(3) If, in any proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), there is any dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant, the Controller shall, within fifteen days of the date of the first hearing of the proceeding, fix an interim rent in relation to premises to be paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) as the case may be, until the standard rent in relation thereto is fixed having regard to the provisions of this Act, and the amount of arrears, if any calculated on the basis of the standard rent shall be paid or deposited by the tenant within one month of the date on which the standard rent is fixed or such further time as the controller may allow in this behalf.

(4).....................

(5).....................

(6).....................

(7).....................

THEREis no dispute that the preseat proceedings are for the recovery of possession of the premises in dispute on the ground specified in clause (a) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 14. This being the case the Controller gets jurisdiction under Section 15(1) to make an order, after giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, directing the tenant to pay to the landlord or deposit with the Controller within one month an amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid for the period for which the arrears of rent was legally recoverable and to continue to pay or deposit month by month by the 15th day of each succeeding month a sum at that rate. The Controller, thereforee. has to find out the amount calculated at the rate of rent at which it was last paid and the period for which the arrears of rent were legally recoverable from the tenant.

(6) SUB-SECTION (3), to which the learned counsel for the appellant referred, does not come into play in the present case as the same applies when there is a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant and standard rent of the premises can be determined in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The relevant provisions of the Act for &x-;, ing the standard rent are, section 9 empowering the Controller to fix the standard rent on an application made to him in this behalf either by the landlord or by the tenant, and section 12, which prescribes the limitation for an application for fixing of standard rent. Reference may also be made here, to section 10, which provides for fixat on of interim rent, when an application of fixing the standard rent is made under section 9. The Controller is required under Section 10, to, as expenditiously as possible, make an order specifying the amount of rent to be paid by the tenant to the landlord perding final decision on the application. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 comes into play when there is a dispute as to the amount of rent payable by the tenant and the standard rent of the premises is to be fixed having regard to the provisions of the Act. It is then that sub-section (3) further require the fixation of interim rent in relation to the premises, which obviously is that which is referred to in section 10 of the Act.

(7) In the present case, an application for fixation of standard rent would admittedly be barred by time The landlord, thereforee, would not be in a position to file an application under Section 9 for fixation of standard rent or ask for the fixation of interim rent under section 10. This being the case, section 15(3) does not come into play, as niether there would be the possibility of fixation of standard rent, nor any occasion for fixing the interim rent The parties are, thereforee, left to press their respectse claims under Section 15(1) only. As there is a dispute about the lent last paid, the amount to be paid to the landlord cannot be determined without hearing the parties. The Controller, thereforee, has to give the parlies an opportunity of leading their evidence and of being heard in order to determine the amount which would be calculated at the rate of rent last paid. The order of the Tribunal, thereforee, is perfectly in order. There is, thus no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.